From: Gregory W. Blank (gblank@bellatlantic.net)
Date: 04/01/02-12:36:33 PM Z
I intially signed to the group to satisfy curiousity towards alt processes
(of course) I think large camera discussion is of interest to me. Sandy I
completely agree regarding in camera negatives....which is to
say I not am opposed to experiementing with digital negatives/ I doubt that
I would ever exclusively produce digital negatives/Just as I doubt I would
ever exclusively produce Platinum prints.
Nothing so far for me compares to the experience to seeing -capturing the
scene or subject, then developing a big negative. The first time I did a 4x5
Pyro negative I know I was in love ;-) and 8x10 is all the better. Alot
of times the reward of seeing the negative is the best part. Beautiful
prints can for me remain secondary to a degree. I guess this in part is a
result of the mental translation my mind does at this point,....much as one
seeing the image reversed but mind's eye right side up on the ground glass.
Nothing bothers me more than a careless scratch in a otherwise perfect
negative,,,,nothing more rewarding than a flawless Pryo negative with
delicate transitions from dense to almost clear.
Part of me really is smitten with images I've seen done on these wide format
ultra Large cameras...I have lots of ideas for images in my mind that I
would do.
Whether I acquire one, remains to be seen. But I feel drawn towrds the 11x14
size camera as well.
on 3/31/02 4:49 PM, Sandy King at sanking@clemson.edu wrote:
> McKeown lists the 7X17, 8X20 and 12X20 Koronas as Panoramic View, but
> notes that they are usually called banquet cameras.
>
> I agree with Carl's observations about the name. All of the 7X17 and
> 8X20 Koronas that I have seen were called "Korona Panoramic View",
> either by the Gundlach-Manhattan Optical Company or by the Seebold
> Invisible Camera Corporation, and the two old Korona 7X17 filmholders
> I own also carry this name. On the other hand, all of the old 12X20
> holders I have seen with labels were called "Banquet Camera Film
> Holders."
>
> As far as I concerned any discussions of banquet and panoramic
> cameras on this list are definitely on-topic. No experience can
> compare to that of making a print with one of the alternative
> processes with a well exposed and developed, real to life, and
> authentic to the scene, in-camera negative.
>
> I am not against digital negatives in any way but by any standard
> they have to be seen as at least one step removed from the
> authenticity of the original scene in comparison to an in-camera
> negative. In fact they are often many steps removed from the original
> scene, and are noted by their perfection, symmetrical duplication of
> objects and scenes, and, in many cases, lack of authenticity.
>
> Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:28 AM Z CST